Talk:Anthony Weiner sexting scandals/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article needs to be renamed

Because the scandal is not any longer only about one photo, in my opinion, we need to consider changing the name of the article. The name Anthony Weiner sexting scandal might work better. What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is no objection by tomorrow I will go ahead and perform this change. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do; that's a much better name. CWC 19:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I object. At this point at least (though I'm open to reconsidering it in time). My reaction at this point -- the scandal related to one photo, and Weiner's failure to be truthful w/regard to the fact that he posted it. What has followed includes a good deal of other matters -- the fact that he sent other photos, etc., the fact that he lied, the fact that he is being investigated for possible mis-use of government resources, etc. But I think that the current name is fine at this point at least, and probably a more recognizable/searched phrase-choice.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case, don't you at least think that that name Anthony Weiner photos scandal would be more accurate than the current name? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is no objection by tomorrow I will go ahead and perform this change. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I could go either way on that ... I have no objection to it staying as is, or being changed to the plural.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To expand on my previous comment, I prefer "Anthony Weiner sexting scandal". (If we went by popularity, I suspect we'd have to pick "Weinergate", which is (1) lexically ugly and (2) less informative.) The scandal arises not from the photos, but from what he did with them: that is, from the sexting. And now I feel a need to wash my hands—CWC 04:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also support a move to "Anthony Weiner sexting scandal". It is a better description. —Lowellian (reply) 12:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made the change. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support The new name is more descriptive and accurate. μηδείς (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If I’m understanding correctly, WP:COMMONNAME is being contravened because of individual aesthetic preference? —Wiki Wikardo 22:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

weiner pic?

The underwear pic he tweeted should be shown here, it is key to the fabric of this article, and in the public domain. There are no copyright issues with it. Benefac (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems unlikely, if he took the photo himself, he would be the copyright holder. The camera used to take the photo is unclear; some people said that it was the BlackBerry Bold 9650 provided by his office, but this remains uncertain.[1] There are privacy issues and the image is easy to find in a Google search.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Two questions - Dan Wolfe & mention of full names

1. The article does not clarify at the moment - how did Dan Wolfe receive Weiner's message to the 21-year old woman?
2. The young ladies Weiner had contact with are not in public interest, so I deem it very problematic and dangerous to post their full names here. Are there objections to remove them and to replace the names by their initials? --KnightMove (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Objection. These are not "young ladies." See below. Pkeets (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The names of the women are in WP:BLPNAME territory and could be removed altogether; articles do not normally give initials, and the names are in the source material.

The tweet with the boxer shorts briefly went out live on Twitter, and it appears that Dan Wolfe (@patriotusa76) saw it and took a screenshot, which he then sent to Breitbart. It does not appear that the image was obtained through hacking, as it was freely available on yfrog for a brief period of time before being deleted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The incident started on the evening of 27 May 2011 EDT, when Weiner posted the boxer shorts photograph, possibly thinking that it was a direct message (DM) to the woman concerned. In fact, it had appeared as a link on his Twitter public timeline and the image was available on yfrog. Dan Wolfe saw the image and appears to have been the only person to have grabbed it before it was deleted. Wolfe's tweets from this period are here. This is probably the earliest mention of the photo on the web.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Should the women be named?

I object to deleting the women's names. They were published in the media, and some of the women followed up with public appearances, photo shoots, books, etc. to take advantage of the publicity. Broussard outed herself. Cordova appeared on the cover of the Washington Post. This type activity voids the expectation of privacy. If you want to delete, it should be on a case by case basis after research of the women's behavior. Try a quick Google for photos. Cordova is the only one I see that is questionable, as she continued to refuse interviews. Pkeets (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the names because it does not lead to a significant loss of context in understanding the scandal. At the time, not all media sources gave the names of the women, although they were available, eg this BBC story and CNN story do not name the women. It was mostly the tabloid press that named the women, the cover mentioned above is from the New York Post, which is a tabloid, not a broadsheet. On balance, I think that WP:BLPNAME applies here. Anyone who reads the sourcing can find the names. Meagan Broussard is more suitable than Cordova to be named, as she spoke to the media [2], but Gennette Cordova was contacted by Weiner out of the blue simply because she had followed Weiner on Twitter. She regarded the incident as a nuisance and embarrassment, saying "I'm just collateral damage."[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go with removing Cordova, but Broussard came forward herself, which indicates her interest in being named in the scandal. Pkeets (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. In case no one has noticed, Lisa Weiss, Ginger Lee and Traci Nobles are named further down in the article. Pkeets (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

All of the women currently named in the article had exchanged social media messages with Weiner and were happy to discuss this with the mainstream media. Gennette Cordova is the exception. She insists that she did nothing to encourage the sending of the boxer shorts photo and was annoyed by the publicity that it caused for her and her family.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on C.--the name should be redacted here too. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Mayoral Run

The subject recently announced a possible run for NYC mayor, which may create pressure to delete this page. Agricola44 (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC).

Further posturing for mayoral bid speculated by The Washington Post here. This article may move into the cross-hairs at some point. Agricola44 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC).

Weiner has now announced run for mayor, according to USA Today and the LA Times. Agricola44 (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC).

Move?

Should this go to Anthony Weiner sexting scandals plural? μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sydney Leathers

Sydney Leathers appears a lot in conjunction with this story and a wiki page directs to this page but there is no mention of her. Any reason? ClarkF1 (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no mention of her by name but she was mentioned. (Someone else just added a sentence about her attempt to crash his primary night party that mentions her by name.) --anon. 71.183.134.249 (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I just read the Guardian article cited for the part about the beginning of the second scandal and it doesn't mention her name, either. Her name must've come out later. --anon. 71.183.134.249 (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a policy about not naming people whose only notability is in connection with someone else's acts. But she has been seeking and getting public attention, so some minimal relevant references to her would be justified. μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the policy against naming such a person (in any Wikipedia article) or is it, more narrowly, against creating an article about such a person? --anon. 71.183.134.249 (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Was your comment ("There's a policy about...") actually intended as a reply to ClarkF1? --anon. 71.183.134.249 (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I was addressing the entire discussion above me, so indented below you. There are two policies, the one you mention, WP:CRIME about not making separate articles about people whose sole notability is in regard to a crime. The second is WP:BLPNAME which holds we should be careful naming private individuals whose only connection is peripheral to a single event. The latter was a concern with the Miami zombie article. Given Leathers has been seeking publicity, being photographed at venues where Weiner was speaking holding up signs advertising her website we don't need to avoid naming her at this point. I would simply name her as the party contacted by Weiner over last summer and add one sentence saying she crashed his concession party and has been promoting her website. There should certainly not be a section about her. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that she can be mentioned by name since she is trying to be as public as she can be. She might rise to the level of notability that'll require its own article. Not yet, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Willing or unwilling audience?

I looked here to find out whether the women were willing recipients. There are quite a few people who would take that into account when judging this incident. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)